Re: Exeter Case 'Solved'

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:28:30 +0100
Archived: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:51:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Exeter Case 'Solved'
>From: Peter Davenport <director.nul>>To: <post.nul>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:47:33 -0700>Subject: Re: Exeter Case 'Solved'>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>>>To: <post.nul>>>Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:41:30 +0100>>Subject: Re: Exeter Case 'Solved'>>>From: Peter Davenport <director.nul>>>>To: <post.nul>>>>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:58:54 -0700>>>Subject: Re: Exeter Case 'Solved'><snip>>>>Martin, et al,>>>I vaguely remember hearing about the McGaha/Nickell article,>>>when it was first published, but today was the first time I took>>>the time to read it. I'm sorry I wasted the time necessary to>>>do so!>>>The contents of the article make it, in my opinion, little more>>>than a classic disinformation piece, hardly worth the time to>>>read it, and certainly not worth the time to write a long,>>>detailed analysis of the many flaws, oversights, and omissions>>>the article exhibits.>>I answered Peter's post and Don's response on another List>>without realising they had also been posted to this list (I've>>been travelling and not receiving mails properly) so I ought to>>quote here what I said there:>>I sympathise with Peter's feeling that my critique of N & McG>>is "not worth the time" but I disagree insofar as others have>>considered N & McG's effort of sufficient interest to cite it.>>I also disagree with the implication that Peter's own list of>>refutations is a waste of his and our time. I think it's always>>important to challenge influential tosh. And I think it's>>always valuable to test theories by examining limit cases in a>>quantitative way if possible because this puts a back-stop>>behind possible interpretations of "soft" testimony that people>>like N & McG may want to try to exploit.><snip>>Martin,>I was not criticizing your post, in which you address the>article by McGaha and Nickell. I was criticizing the article>itself! I have no issue with the fact that you had raised and>addressed the issue of their article about Exeter.
OK, Peter, thanks for that clarification. No problem.
>I recall that you and I have 'crossed sabers' on at least one>occasion in the past, but this is, by no means, a repeat of>that exchange!
Ha, I expect an occasional abrasive clash is a necessary part of
virile debate. But in this case we have complementary rather
than conflicting points of view.
Kind regards
Martin
Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast
At:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/
These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.